OK. I don't really understand why opaqueness is so clearly preferable
- but perhaps this is a matter of wisdom born from years of usage, which
I shouldn't expect to understand.
Now at least sometimes, we seem forced into a kind reading of the iota;
e.g. if {tu'a}(x,y) means something like "x is an abstraction involving
y", then in {broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e} we seem forced to a kind reading:
"abstractions involving ko'a and involving ko'e".
Example where both readings are actually plausible:
mi xebni na'e bo mi
could mean either "I hate everything other than me" or "I hate things
other than me".
So maybe {lo} == \iota == "the largest" isn't really right after all?
> > So rather than representing {lo broda cu brode} as
> > Presupposition: broda(c1)
> > brode(c1)
> > could we then just represent it as
> > brode(\iota broda(_))?
> >
> > That would make me happy.
>
> How would you express it in Lojban?
As {lo broda cu brode}!
\iota x. P(x) <-> lo poi'i P
is what I was hoping for.
> (Hopefully nothing involving mekso. :)
{li mo'e lo nu'a na'u broda} does have a certain ring to it, now you
mention it...